How much does caliber really matter?

[Monkeybear]

You are attacked. You only have one shot. You fire and hit the attacker COM. The attacker is now 7 feet from you. Whatever platform you use is loaded with ammunition that is the designed to upmost limits of performance for your chosen caliber. In a nutshell all other things are equal except the caliber. If you cannot accept that all other things could possibly be equal for the purpose of this discussion pretend that you can. The importance of bullet design is understood but let us pretend that any bullet used in this situation is as well designed as any other.



In this situation how much dose caliber matter? Are you any better off with a 10mm than you would be with a .45acp? Than a 9mm? Better off with a .500s&W than a .357mag? At what point does caliber make a difference and where dose it not?


Let us for a moment pretend that we did not make up our minds the moment we read the title. If you are a 1911 guy and only shoot 1911s in .45acp pretend for the sake of this discussion that you are not. If you are a revolver guy please do the same. 9mm and 10mm guys; you too.

 

[MaterDei]

Bigger holes are better than smaller ones, always.

 

[LawofThirds]

.50 BMG (pick your round, I don't care and neither would the corpse in front of me)

If I only get one shot and all other factors besides stopping power then obviously I'm going to pick the biggest/most powerful round I can. That's one of the biggest reasons to carry a .357 J frame.

If I had to pick one round that I would have to balance ease of carry, recoil, size, and all the other considerations (gun being one of the greatest considerations, I may not be able to carry a large firearm to house my large round). .45 ACP for autoloader, .44 special for revolver (if it wasn't a 625)

I'm a fan of large permanent wound channels and big bullets tend to deposit a lot of energy without as much need for high velocity, which can lead to over penetration of soft targets.

 

[MachIVshooter]

All bullets kill by causing severe blood loss or destroying vital organs. Handgun rounds are traveling too slow to impart the hydrostatic shock and temporal cavity stretch, so the wounding mechanism is crushed/torn tissue. This means that the bullet must be able to penetrate deep enough and cause a sufficiently large cavity. Hence, a bigger bullet that penetrates deeper is more effective. Hollowpoints and other expanding designs allow the smaller caliber to create a larger wound, but at the price of reduced penetration. So to drive an expanded hollowpoint deep enough, you need more momentum (bullet weight and velocity). This is why rounds like the .357 magnum and 10mm have an edge; they develop enough energy to drive a fully expanded holowpoint very deep (or even completely through) the body.

So yes, caliber does matter. But shot placement is still paramount.

 

[Timthinker]

If I were restricted to a single-shot pistol such as a T/C Contender, then I would want to use the most powerful cartridge available to me since a rapid follow-up shot would not be possible. Of all the cartridges you mentioned, the .500 S&W seems like the best choice for a single COM shot at 7 feet. I hope this helps.


Timthinker

 

[Monkeybear]

Just to clarify I am not debating whether or not caliber matters but rather asking opinions as to what extent it matters. Placement is paramount but once you have that how much dose the actual bullet and its velocity matter.

How much?

Will a .45 with maximum penetration and expansion save your life where a 9mm with maximum penetration and expansion would not? How about a .380?

If the .45 failed with proper placement would a 10mm have not?

If the bullet is well designed and performs as designed, the untold multitude of random variables aside, can a slightly larger and or faster bullet be better enough to make a difference? At what point dose a bullet become bigger and faster enough to make a difference?

I understand that there is likely no real answer to be had, I just like reading your opinions.

 

[LawofThirds]

Placement is everything in handgun rounds for lethality. For stopping....your voodoo science is as good as my voodoo science, which is why we have people still yakking themselves blue in the face over which round is better (or even more arcane, which weight of bullet in a particular calibre is more effective). It's also how self defense ammo still sells for what it does and how companies like extreme shock stay in business.

Personally I subscribe to the bigger is better and the slow and heavy schools of thinking. Small and fast has several perceived disadvantages to my way of thinking, even though I will agree that there are very effective small rounds.

 

[Marbles]

Yes.

I can't afford anything other than 9mm for pistols. 9mm FMJ 115gr.

In this sad state of America, not everybody can afford even hollowpoints. I can't afford them. 9mm is a very nice, easy round to shoot, and I like it.

Is any other round good? Yes. But I can't afford it.

 

[Snapping Twig]

As a general rule, bigger is better. Also speed is a factor as is bullet type/construction.

I get only one shot...? OK, let's say a .44 mag, 180g HP at 1500fps, that ought to do it!

Round nose and FMJ are typically under performers as they disrupt less tissue than other rounds. SWC and other rounds with a large flat face (metplat) are excellent choices for hunting as they penetrate well and impart hydrostatic shock, do this with a big enough caliber and the blood loss from entry and exit holes, not to mention all the secondary missiles (bone fragments) and temporary cavity should do the trick.

Speed up a small caliber enough and it gains power. Hollow point bullets made to expand at handgun (magnum) velocities ought to be sufficient to completely penetrate human targets from a CM perspective. The point here is that the HP expands and penetrates making it in effect a larger caliber. I say, why not shoot a large bore bullet - they're pre-expanded without expanding.

To my mind, anything you can accurately place would be far more effective than something huge that you can't accurately place. If all you have is a .38spl, but you shoot it well, would be more than enough to do the work.

I prefer large bore pistols and my first choice for social work would have to be .45acp from a 1911. I also favor .44spl (home loaded) as a .429 bullet of 240g @ 900fps is a stopper.

 

[LawofThirds]

A single box of something like black hills blue box (remanufactured) JHP 115 grain will run you about 20 per 50 cartridges and would be an inexpensive round to keep for home defense, especially since 9mm ball has been proven to over penetrate.

 

[Marbles]

A single box of something like black hills blue box (remanufactured) JHP 115 grain will run you about 20 per 50 cartridges and would be an inexpensive round to keep for home defense, especially since 9mm ball has been proven to over penetrate.

They don't sell that where I live. :sigh:

I am much more concerned about being able to shoot at the target and hit him. Over penetration does not bother me.

EDIT: a WWB box of 9mm FMJ 115gr ran me about 19.99 or so (probably 21.99) on sale. 50 round box of UMC 9mm FMJ 115gr ran me about 13.99, on sale. I can't afford to buy ammo -NOT- on sale.

 

[CWL]

I read your post 3x and I'm still not sure I'm following you.

For the sake of self defense: your 1st shot is the most important because you may never get to fire a 2nd.

I'll stick with my M1911 and any .45ACP round that I have in the pipe that day. Against an unarmored opponent, I'll take my chances with a single .45ACP to his/her COM.

No need second-guessing my choice of firearm & caliber at this point.

 

[LawofThirds]

To Marbles:
Winchester does a hollowpoint in their white box, I've seen it for sale at my local sportsman's warehouse for as low as 17.99/100 during an easter sale (9mm-cause that easter bunny is gonna do some b&e)

I would be inclined to purchase it not just from a safety/stopping power stand point but also from a legal standpoint. While obviously location is all important in real estate and shots, having the bullet pass through him (happened quite a few times for the NYPD with 9mm) and wound someone (who's going to sue for sure)(or that you care about (who might still sue)) would be a worry to me.

Still, if you live by yourself in a brick building in a rural area, then go for the FMJ, and in the end it's your choice, I can only explain my reasons for me buying JHP's.

To CWL:
I understand the question I think. It's a somewhat roundabout way of asking about single bullet stopping power. While empirical evidence points to a .357, I think that evidence is skewed by the function of it being the number 1 police handgun round for a great number of years and the tendency of police in more recent times with high capacity autoloaders to believe in the "if one is good, lots is better" line of thinking for shooting combatant miscreants.

I'm still sticking with .50 BMG since technically it's the largest round chambered in a handgun and we are in the handgun forum. If I will never have another shot and I know I'll hit center mass, I'm going pick the largest round I can. Your 1911 in .45 ACP is a great choice as a self defense weapon, however it is designed to hold more than one round. Assume an amazing one shot derringer in any calibre currently contained in a handgun that will shoot someone COM (say right through the breastbone) every time and then disintegrate, what round would you pick?

 

[Monkeybear]

CWL- How much dose caliber matter? The rest of what I wrote is just to keep everything that is not caliber out of the discussion. Many caliber discussions are filled with what is actually great advice like "whatever you shoot best" or "placement is key" however I wanted to keep this topic about when caliber makes enough of a difference and when it dose not.

To illustrate lets say you placed one very well designed .380 bullet COM on your attacker. The attacker is only 7 feet away. If this single well designed well placed bullet penetrated and expanded as designed and yet failed to save your life would a 9mm have failed as well? Would a .45 have failed?

At what point dose caliber make enough of a difference to save your life from this close range attack?

In a nutshell: If everything else goes right, where dose caliber start to make a difference?



Sorry if my question is poorly worded, its pretty late for me.

 

[LawofThirds]

Honestly, COM is not the ideal placement. CNS is ideal placement as COM is going to rely on bleed out effect which can take between 15-30 seconds depending on your attackers condition. Which is plenty of time for him to stab you to death with his sharpened toothbrush.

 

[Monkeybear]

CNS may be ideal in real life but here it just makes the discussion about caliber a lot harder. With a CNS hit it won't matter if you used a .25acp or a .50bmg. If it doesn't matter there is nothing to discuss and if there is nothing to discuss there is nothing to share or learn and thus no fun to be had.

 

[LawofThirds]

Well, CNS shots still have to penetrate the cranial cavity, something that's pretty hard for alot of handgun bullets. I do not know if this statistic is true but I have heard that as little as 50% of handgun rounds fired (that connect) with a person's skull penetrate.

If I get one shot, still taking that .50 BMG. Failing that, I wonder if I can get a TC contender in .700 Express or .577 Tyrannosaurus. The broken arm wouldn't be much fun though

 

[Zoogster]

Bigger will always be better with just one COM shot. However 3-4 shots in the same time with a less powerful round can be more effective and faster than 2 shots with a caliber more powerful than necessary for the human torso with slow follow up shots.

So bigger is better for 1 shot like in your scenario, which is why they are great for hunting.
However when you factor in more than 1 shot, and that most common pistol calibers often have random immediate results on the target, time between follow up shots can be one of the most important factors if the first shot was not enough.

Further you don't want to penetrate right through the person, the car behind him, and hit the next person with as much energy as a medium caliber at the muzzle. So using say a .500S&W even with the best expanding ammunition would probably be a bit inconsiderate. Now loaded with frangible ammo or even multiple projectiles per round (when shooting 400 grain pills at those velocities you will still be okay if instead it shot 4 100 grain projectiles at the same velocity.)

In several well documented videos you can reference of police shootouts involving just one officer and one criminal dozens of rounds have been fired. That is fairly common.
That is especialy true when around vehicles, and with the other side shooting back. It is easy to criticize someone for not being more precise when they have incoming rounds but data seems to show higher round count can be beneficial in some cases.
Even the military has shown that the number of small arms kills is propertional to a very high round count in most combat situations when people are taking cover and fighting it out(obviously some great marksmen, and some high rate of fire machineguns make shot per kill data a bit erratic.)

It is just easier to duck behind cover and fire 10 rounds with mediocre accuracy in about a foot radious at the enemy than it is to fire a few precision rounds while he is shooting at you.
5 imperfect shots from cover that wound the enemy while taking none in return beats 1 or 2 perfect shots that cause you to be hit as well from the point of view of the officer.
Pistol rounds rarely immediately incapacitate the reciever. So a determined attacker can continue to get some rounds off even after being hit. Which means even a great shooter can take return fire in the time it takes for the wound to down the individual.
It is not a wild west movie, the quickest draw and shot does not always remain uninjured just because he hit his mark first. Someone can take a dozen rounds from a submachinegun in the chest and still return fire in the 10-15 seconds of consciousness they have left.So unlike in the movies, two individuals pointing weapons at eachother who then open fire are quite likely to exchange bullets, not have one escape uninjured and the other be immediately incapacitated.

 

[loop]

The question is flawed. A shot to COM will not stop any faster than 10 to 15 seconds if everything works to its optimum capability. COM shots depend on bleed out or shock to stop. Bleed out takes time. Shock can be immediate.

Your best chance of inducing immediate shock is with a flat-nosed bullet, such as a wadcutter. It has a direct impact on more nerve endings than a round-nosed bullet or hollowpoint, both of which tend to move nerve endings out of the way. The hollowpoint may produce more rapid bleeding, but in your query you are talking seven yards - a short enough distance that if I had a baseball bat and you had a .45ACP you'd be dead before I would.

The only truly instant incapacitating shot is a CNS hit.

If I could I'd use the largest bore size possible with a flat-faced bullet, ie: wadcutter.

Just by way of information, last week at our pistol match I got hit in the arm by one of my .45 rounds on a ricochet off a steel plate. Got a pretty decent gash. I got cold and had goose pimples and even felt a little light headed, but I finished the course of fire and turned in a respectable score. We found the bullet (I bled pretty good so we searched for it). It was a nearly intact 230-grain .45. If it hit me at about 600 fps in a more sensitive place I may have whited out.

As Julian Hatcher determined nearly 100 years ago, big and slow is the best stopper. I would agree. Hatcher's Notebook should be required reading for anyone who carries for self defense.

 

[Marbles]

To Marbles:
Winchester does a hollowpoint in their white box, I've seen it for sale at my local sportsman's warehouse for as low as 17.99/100 during an easter sale (9mm-cause that easter bunny is gonna do some b&e)

I would be inclined to purchase it not just from a safety/stopping power stand point but also from a legal standpoint. While obviously location is all important in real estate and shots, having the bullet pass through him (happened quite a few times for the NYPD with 9mm) and wound someone (who's going to sue for sure)(or that you care about (who might still sue)) would be a worry to me.

Still, if you live by yourself in a brick building in a rural area, then go for the FMJ, and in the end it's your choice, I can only explain my reasons for me buying JHP's.

Good point.

The only WWBs we have here is FMJ. At just above minimum wage I can't afford much more than UMC ammo. But if I see some of that JHP I might pick it up. There are a lot of people in my wage bracket, and we simply cannot afford Cor-bon .357 SIG +P+ JHP premium ammo that clocks in the hot 10mm areas.


Personally, I think we are asking too much from a handgun round. Here is what we want:

1. High power/energy.
2. Low recoil.
3. Excellent penetration of windshields, bricks, multiple cars, and doors and body armor.
4. High magazine capacity.
5. Smaller rounds over bigger rounds, for the sake of portability. (ie. if a 155mm howitizer does the same exact effect as a 240mm, go with 155)
6. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. Plentiful. Legal.
7. Stops the -whoever- in one shot. Anywhere.
8. Stops inside the BG with no exit wound.
9. Massive internal injury.
10. Doesn't hurt anything else except target and obstacles in front of him.
11. Accurate. Really, really accurate. Flat shooting round too.
12. No missfires, hangfires, KBs, etc. Perfect stuff.
13. Reloadable.

We do not want the inverse of all of the above. Does anybody see a pattern for those requirements!?

I'll cut the chase. It's a rifle round. We don't know the caliber, but it is probably .223 and above, and probably less than .270. Somewhere in between there.

We are requesting hyperbolic requirements from our handguns. We want it to penetrate barriers, but not over penetrate. We want it to be powerful, but cheap and have high capacity, low recoil.

I believe 9mm is an EXCELLENT compromise. You cannot have everything in that list in a handgun. 9mm is also very good for people who are recoil sensitive. It is easy to shoot, it is plentiful.

I met somebody else at the range, who let me shoot a couple of their firearms. Very, very nice people. I didn't know people like this existed. We agreed that .22LR, .223, 9mm...POPULAR rounds that can be found ANYWHERE are best. Are you going to find .218 Bee in Katrina type situation? .220 Swift? .41 Magnum? .500 S/W? .22 Agrilla?

Think about it. .45 is good. You can find it in a lot of places. But not everybody can afford it. We should not be bashing (not saying anywhere here did it) people who cannot afford $3k Kimber compacts with very expensive "premium self defense" ammunition.

 

[Erik]

"How much does caliber really matter?"

Objectively, as long as a given caliber provided between 12 and 18 inches of penetration in bare gelatin, preferably coupled with reliabe expansion, not much.

Subjectively, as long as the above is coupled with acceptable recoil levels for a given shooter, not much.

 

[CWL]

To illustrate lets say you placed one very well designed .380 bullet COM on your attacker. The attacker is only 7 feet away. If this single well designed well placed bullet penetrated and expanded as designed and yet failed to save your life would a 9mm have failed as well? Would a .45 have failed?

Monkeybear, OK, I'm following you now. There is unfortunately no answer to your question. You might shoot a 300lb bully with a .22lr and he gives up crying, but you might also shoot a 115lb meth-head with a .44 mag but who doesn't realize that he's already dead so he still kills you with a steak knife.

As for your .380 example, generally these guns will be fired from small guns with short barrels, so velocity & potential expansion is not optimal. In my case, a .45ACP bullet fired from my 5" barrel M1911 is going to be at design optimal in performance.

It really still comes own to where you hit with the first shot. Caliber sure contributes to the equation.

 

[Mac45]

Bigger bullets are always better than little bullets.
They let more air in, and more blood out, which is of course the object of the exercise.
Having said that, carry what YOU shoot best.
Much better to be able to use a .22LR well, than lug around a .47 caliber Loudenboomer that you can't hit anything with.
Just my $.02

 

[Timthinker]

I thought an interesting historical footnote might be appropriate here. In terms of rifle technology, as firepower rates increased, the size of caliber has tended to decrease. Yes, this thread is about a single-shot handgun round. But this generalization seems to have merit here. Smoothbore muskets tended to have a larger bore diameter than rifles. Breech loading rifles tended to have a smaller caliber than muzzleloading rifles. Repeater rifles, for the military, tended to have a smaller caliber size than single-shot breech loaders. My point is that if you are limited to one shot before reloading, then a larger caliber weapon seems appropriate. Just thought I would share this tidbit of information.


Timthinker

 

[Markbo]

I don't have anything to add that would mean anything other than a personal opinion, but I remember seeing someones signature here once... forgive me if it is not perfect:

"The argument about most effective one shot stop .45 vs 9mm is not due to a lack of bodies to study"

Surely this subject has some definative data available to back up all these theories being thrown about as fact.